Wednesday, April 06, 2016

While Ted Cruz and his fanboys might fantasize about him winning the nomination in a brokered convention, it’s not likely to happen. Beyond Cruz being ineligible to serve due to being a natural-born Canadian, he’s widely despised by his fellow Republicans for his habitual dishonesty and abrasive attitude. The only reason he’s currently racking up endorsements from party insiders like Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham is because they want to use him as a club to beat Trump with.

GOP establishment hacks have begun floating the idea of nominating House Speaker (and 2012 vice presidential nominee) Paul Ryan as a compromise candidate at the convention. Not only would this represent an unprecedented insult to the party’s base, nominating Ryan would guarantee a Democratic victory in November. The Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan brand of Republicanism is so repulsive to voters that not only did it lose them the 2012 election (an election they should have won due to Obama’s unpopularity), Ryan’s own hometown refused to support him.

In any event, Donald Trump and his supporters will need to turn the heat up after his loss in Wisconsin in order to thwart the GOP establishment. Voting for Ted Cruz will ensure that the nomination goes to Ryan, Romney or another Wall Street-owned company man who will both disregard the interests of the American people and lose to the Democrats. If you’re serious about pulling up the floorboards of the GOP to expose the rot within, Trump is your only option.

It's rather remarkable that so many Republicans would rather lose to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders than simply get on board with Donald Trump. C'est la vie, as it has been said by others before, at this point, all politics in the USA is little more than laying the groundwork for Round Two.

I wanted to like Paul Ryan, but he's been an unmitigated and shady cuckservative for nearly as long as he's been on the national scene.

Paul Ryan is a living emblem of everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. He'd be a great case study for future historians trying to figure out the debased spirit of an age where people openly rooted for their own people to fail and to be replaced by foreign barbarians.

As you no doubt recall, the magic number of delegates the candidates need to get to is 1237. Trump is 494 delegates short of that, and Cruz is 720 short. So what could I possibly mean by “dead heat?” But first, even as a straight up horse race, Cruz can still catch up. He is only 226 behind, but that is not what really counts. That’s not a dead heat. Here is what really counts.

In order to secure the requisite delegates, Trump has to gather 494 more delegates. In order to deny Trump the requisite delegates, Cruz (and also Kasich) need to gather 495 more delegates. 494/495 means dead heat. If Trump falls short of 1237 on the first ballot, a massive percentage of the delegates are released to vote for anyone they want. Then the logrolling starts, and Cruz has done a masterful job so far in organizing for such eventualities beforehand. That is why Cruz is now the front runner.

Seen at: https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/dead-heat.html

If Trump is the nominee, he'll get my vote. No matter what happens, I'll be entertained.

If Ryan pulls the carpet out from under Cruz, Trump still has the ability to stand at the podium and declare "revolt and stand behind me, and I will do everything in my power to get Cruz in Scalia's slot." I bet Cruz would actually go for it.

It's rather remarkable that so many Republicans would rather lose to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders than simply get on board with Donald Trump.

Well, I believe it was Cruz's campaign manager who, when asked if he would vote for a democrat, said "Both [Clinton and Trump] will damage the republic, but Trump will also damage the Republican Party".

If Ryan pulls the carpet out from under Cruz, Trump still has the ability to stand at the podium and declare "revolt and stand behind me, and I will do everything in my power to get Cruz in Scalia's slot." I bet Cruz would actually go for it.

It can only be Cruz or Trump. They will hold 80% of the delegates between them and will not agree to overturn rule 40. So...the deal making will be to pick up Rubio and Kasich delegates. Which ever one does that successfully wins the nomination.

I briefly bought the story that Ryan was a budget hawk and therefore not necessarily a bad guy, even if he had the personality of a bleached human version of flan, but the cuckservative has been very strong with him since Boehner retired. Before that, I honestly didn't pay too much attention to him.

No. It can only be Trump or someone other than Cruz. Cruz himself is not playing for the nomination. He is playing for something else. No way does a brokered convention end up falling to the guy who couldn't even win the delegates.

It won't be Cruz, Rubio, Bush or any other GOPe-er who ran. They were merely the stable of stalking horses. Cruz wasn't going to be one until Bush clapped his pants. Once he became the Party's Boy in order to make the race closer, he sealed that fate: probably willingly.

I'm still not sure what he's really getting in exchange, but I'm equally sure that he does know.

.....I wanted to like Paul Ryan, but he's been an unmitigated and shady cuckservative for nearly as long as he's been on the national scene......

The guy does Crossfit. That should have been a huge red flag to anyone when he came on the scene. You know the hardest thing about Crossfit? Telling your parents you're gay! Any man that believes kipping pull ups are legit and using plates that are all designed to look like 45's is a ginormous homo.

It's pretty clear why the GOP crony establishment are more comfortable with Hillary than with Trump. Their only concern is keeping the taxpayer-funded, Washington gravy train rolling. They know that Hillary will keep it rolling; they can't be sure about Trump.

I heard a moron from Albuquerque dial into Rush Limbaugh who talked about how great the establishment is, and how he understands the spiritual pain and anguish of Karl Rove in the horror of a Trumpen Presidency.

The man clearly doesn't know that Karl Rove is an admitted moral relativist atheist who thinks Christians are rubes.

He claimed to be a true conservative, for Rubio, and that the Gang of Eight was an "adult" way to handle amnesty.

I suspect, as an interested non-American observer, that Trump is suffering from the full court press of his opponents.

Which is basically everyone who is either part of the establishment or wants to be.

It is still to early to say if this is just the first exchange or a sea change in the election wars. I sure hope he wins enough delegates because the farce that a brokered convention will inevitable be, will guarantee a violent and dangerous future...

On a serious note, #23 is right. The full court cuck-radio press has been raging these past few weeks. Its all been anti-Trump. The cucks lost round 1 to Trump, but they have regrouped, rearmed, and are on the offensive. Hope Trump has the iron will needed for an assault on this scale.

It's seems clear the GOP won't win in November. I am for Trump, but realize if he wins the cucks will go against him and probably sabotage any chance of him winning. I also know if Cruz wins a brokered convention, the Trump (Reagan) democrats won't vote for Cruz, nor will a lot of Trump supporters like me. Finally if they do manage to get Ryan or Romney as the nominee, virtually none of the Trump or Cruz supporters will support him, and none of the Reagan democrats will either.

Bottom line, the GOP is probably too fractured already to win in November.

The problem is that Trump is a petty, lying, flip flopping, bullying sack of crap whose only redeeming quality is that Hillary is worse. It is very hard to get excited about Donald Trump. I for one am tired of voting against people, rather than for someone.

Does anyone else find it annoying that WI came two weeks after the last primary, and that the next primary (NY) won't happen for two more weeks? I mean what is with this pause. We had Iowa and then NH and then we had a boatload of states. We've had days where several states voted. Now in the crucial stage we have all this delay. I'd prefer to a couple of states per week at least to keep things moving.

"It's rather remarkable that so many Republicans would rather lose to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders than simply get on board with Donald Trump."

Not remarkable. It's an entrenched empire (by far the richest in history) and the political class plus lobbyists etc. will do anything to keep their rice bowls overflowing. Their interest in the nation's welfare is about zero.

Yesterday Cruz, the Repub mouthpiece, announced that Trump is 'afraid of women'. So the leading 'conservative' and 'Christian' candidate plays the same cowardly Gotcha games as the Demoncraps. Feminists on the Left and feminists on the Right. Today the WH follows-up with more activism on 'gender rights', starring that lovable Iranian patriot, Valerie Jarrett. Obie, Clinton, Cruz, Jarrett, etc. All one thing. I'm not into coincidences, especially when it comes to politics.

Trump is hardly a populist, much less a Working Class populist -- multi-billionaire, game-show host, golf-course globalist. Silver-spooner since birth and no, you don't know us. But he's outside the Beltway sufficient to frighten the cuckservatives into merging their rhetoric with the Left. That's telling and a point in Trump's favor. Almost anything that discomfits or scares the Republicrat establishment is a plus, and Trump's 'slip' concerning any female responsibility for abortion clearly terrified Team SJW, given the prompt blowback.

Almost anything that discomfits or scares the Republicrat establishment is a plus, and Trump's 'slip' concerning any female responsibility for abortion clearly terrified Team SJW, given the prompt blowback.

Trump is like the child in The Emperor's New Clothes, he's succeeded in unmasking a number of groups, from the "conservatives" to the "pro lifers" and so forth. It's been very illuminating to see what's under some flat rocks, not to mention amusing.

This is the problem with losing the culture war for so long. So many conservatives are now emotionally beholden to the Left. Ryan's ridiculous "that's not who we are" actually rings true on an emotional level for many conservatives (even intellectual opponents of immigration) because national self-image has been successfully programmed left for generations.

If NY is an open primary state like many of the early states, it's entirely possible that a bunch of democrats could come in and vote for Cruz. What a lot of people are forgetting in their support of Trump is that due to the fact that many states have open primaries, in those states it's not easy to say what the will of the "Republican" or "Democratic" bases really are in this election.

A CBS exit poll yesterday showed that more than half of Wisconsin's GOP voters on Tuesday said they would be concerned or scared if Donald Trump were elected president. The poll found more than a third of Republican voters, 37 percent, said they would be scared and 18 percent said they would be concerned when asked how they would feel if Trump wins the White House. That might give one pause about Trump's chances in the general election.

Sam Lively wrote:This is the problem with losing the culture war for so long. So many conservatives are now emotionally beholden to the Left. Ryan's ridiculous "that's not who we are" actually rings true on an emotional level for many conservatives (even intellectual opponents of immigration) because national self-image has been successfully programmed left for generations.

There has to be a paradigm shift from the Right which is already happening on the leading edge, the Alt-Right. It's not a new position which the Alt-Right is taking, but a very old one: Nationalism. The establishment conservatives just haven't made the move yet, but most will over the next couple of decades. If they do not they will either fade into obscurity or join the Left openly in supporting the global elites and some form of statism.

The current battle for the GOP is to stave off this decision for them for at least a couple of more election cycles by crushing the nationalistic movement forming around Trump.

And shock of shocks, I just got an email from the Cruz Campaign verifying their strategy is at the delegate-by-delegate level. Not to win outright, but to deny Trump the delegates he needs. "Every delegate that we win between now and the convention is CRUCIAL to stopping Donald Trump from winning".

Had to laugh, it was labelled "for your eyes only -- do not forward to Trump supporters confidential brief from the personal desk of Ted Cruz" in all caps. The thing reads like a damn parody. I kept waiting for Jethro "Double-naught spy" to show up.

"Well, I believe it was Cruz's campaign manager who, when asked if he would vote for a democrat, said "Both [Clinton and Trump] will damage the republic, but Trump will also damage the Republican Party".

So no, it's not all that remarkable and is actually quite logical."

"I'm an outsider sent to fight the DC cabal, but now that they're openly supporting me vs the only remaining outsider you're going to damage the party by fighting the cabal!"

Big Ted wrote:Well, I believe it was Cruz's campaign manager who, when asked if he would vote for a democrat, said "Both [Clinton and Trump] will damage the republic, but Trump will also damage the Republican Party".

I think that's the feeling of a large part of the GOP establishment. They're thinking, "Cruz [or anyone other than Trump] will lose, but that's it. Trump will lose and hurt other Republicans running this year." They're assuming they've already lost the White House and want to limit the damage.

I disagree with them in two places:

1. I'm not sure Trump would lose. I think he has a better chance to win the general election than any active candidate other than Kasich (and it would take a straight-up miracle for him to get the nomination). He also has a better chance than any brokered candidate (Ryan, etc).

2. I don't think Trump will hurt down-ticket Republicans. He won't necessarily help, them, though. Many of the non-Republican voters he'd bring in are either (a) working-class Democrats who'll stick with their party in other races, or (b) people who don't normally vote, who won't bother voting in any other races. So Trump's negative effect down-ticket is limited to the loss of whatever boost Cruz would theoretically generate.

So, the GOP establishment has to ask themselves "am I willing to throw away the down-ticket boost a non-Trump candidate would generate in order to gamble on a Trump victory?" If I were a delegate, I'd probably take that bet.

Then again, I also don't think Cruz (or the like) would generate much down-ticket boost. I'm not betting because I think it's likely I'll win; I'm betting because I don't have much to lose.

And shock of shocks, I just got an email from the Cruz Campaign verifying their strategy is at the delegate-by-delegate level. Not to win outright, but to deny Trump the delegates he needs. "Every delegate that we win between now and the convention is CRUCIAL to stopping Donald Trump from winning".

That was also the Ron Paul and Barack Obama strategies. It's called playing the game by the rules of the game.

Oh come now, Trump is the non-whore running this year. Its not the color of the whore that matters its whether they have been bought. Its hard to buy a Billionaire, the cheapskates don't want to spend that much moola to get their kickbacks.When clowns like Ryan says it not who we are, he's not talking about you. Who are you? A taxpayer? That's not who pays their drug and hooker bills.Cruz looks really happy. Those phone logs haven't led to subpoenas yet. They must be waiting for Teddy to get uppity at the Convention and expect to get something out of this for the charges to get filed. Club Fed is the price he will pay for not stepping aside for Rove's little loser. Will it be another Boosh? Karl sure does have a hard-on for Bush. I'd bet money that boy be gay.

"It's rather remarkable that so many Republicans would rather lose to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders than simply get on board with Donald Trump"

No it isn't. What do you think political parties are? They don't exist to serve constituencies or ideologies, though those are useful. They're essentially open conspiracies to monopolize certain parts of government in order to empower or enrich whoever is in control of the party, and to give patronage and position to those that help them maintain power. That's it.

You have to win offices to have the power, but they don't plan on winning every office. That's why so many elections go uncontested. The presidency is a big one, with enormous patronage possibilities, but they can live without it if faced with the unthinkable alternative of having someone they can't control win the presidency. That would threaten their control of the party, and what is the point of a party you aren't running? Then the former party leaders would be just another patronage seeker.

That's why they attack heretics with infinitely more fury than the opposition. The opposition is useful, in fact. It is a specter upon which all misfortune can be blamed and a tool to keep the troops in line. In extreme circumstances the opposition can shrink a party's power to the infinitesimal, but it can't ever really destroy one. Parties are torn apart from within.

Look there is no secret cabal pulling strings to control all these puppets. whoever wins is going to be someone who is actually running for president. The rules are set by the delegates. The delegates are supporting candidates.

Therefore one of those candidates will win.

It will not be ryan or anyone else. It will either be Cruz or Trump or that idiot from Ohio.

Its still Trump's to lose.. but he is certainly doing everything in his power to lose it. His response to the wisconsin resuts was something that Ross Perot would put out.

"It's rather remarkable that so many Republicans would rather lose to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders than simply get on board with Donald Trump. C'est la vie, as it has been said by others before, at this point, all politics in the USA is little more than laying the groundwork for Round Two."

That's what floors me. They really would rather Hillary win. They've shown their true, debased colors. Read the article in its entirety and had no clue that Janesville didn't support Ryan in '12. The GOPe isn't playing with fire; they're playing with a 2 kiloton nuclear artillery shell. If it goes to a brokered convention AND they choose someone over Trump (who will be closest mathematically to 1237) they will have not only ceded the election to Hillary, they will have destroyed themselves as a force in American politics.

@1 I do not understand Kasich's appeal. He's been a career politician since the mid-80s. I couldn't care less what good he's done for Ohio (my birth state). He's as cucky as all get out.

@2 Agreed

@3 I'm voting for the Donald come our primary here in Indy.

@6 If Trump is the nominee, I'll support him regardless of his VP pick.

@8 How do you figure Cruz would go for a SCJ spot?

@14 Thanks for the info on a shout out to Lindsay Graham. I had no idea he did that and would assume it's par for the course with Cruz.

@15 If you're counting the British original, years before Ryan ever came onto the scene at that!

"The guy does Crossfit. That should have been a huge red flag to anyone when he came on the scene. You know the hardest thing about Crossfit? Telling your parents you're gay! Any man that believes kipping pull ups are legit and using plates that are all designed to look like 45's is a ginormous homo."

@17 That made me smile. What are your thoughts on Charles Atlas?

@21 I heard that guy too! It was beautiful how Limbaugh just tore him apart to boot!

@25 It had better be a big, YUGE, beautiful, wonderful iron will!

@31 My guess is eight years of Hillary or the Berne at which time America will be so completely gutted in terms of money and military prowess that the Mexicans may retake the Southwest or the U.S. may collapse under its own weight.

@32 He's a delaying action for me. The reason I like him is because he is willing to call a spade a spade and doesn't mince words. It'd be nice for the rest of the world to fear us and the man in the office of POTUS, for one more time...

@33 It's because usually things are settled after Supah Tuesday.

@39 It reminds me of hanging out years ago in Portugal with a Brazilian who fled to Portugal due to Brazil's politics. The man was true right wing and explained in Portugal right wingers vote for the center, thinking it's the right. In our case, so many on the right have internalized the nation of immigrants b.s. and that's not who we are. If only we could revive Washington, Jefferson, et. al. I'd love to see them whip some ass.

@43 See my previous comments on other posts about the validity of polls.

Absurd. Cruz will never get the nomination and even if he does by some miracle it means nearly instant destruction for the GOP. Keep in mind he will almost assuredly lose Pennsylvania, New York, AND California before it's all said and done... along with already losing Florida and many others.

If the convention does not nominate either Trump or Cruz, the GOP might as well go home and stay. They will lose the election soundly, and deserve it. Ryan didn't run, and they have no business nominating the slug.

"...an Internationalist Christian (Catholic) gets in the way of looking after his own nation's welfare."

A true Catholic (not one of the Vatican II variety you are pointing to here) is a true nationalist to his bone marrow. That's part and parcel of being a TRUE Catholic. Do some research before you spout error.

What are the chances that the Delegates who are saying they will support Ted Cruz are lying and will vote Ryan and deny Ted the convention floor so he can't even give an impassioned "They lied to me again!" speech?

I'm hoping for a Jeb/Graham ticket for maximum lulz. Trump is the best way out of this mess solely because he doesn't play the same games everyone else does. Cruz plays the games, but his positions are good if he doesn't throw it all out the window like Obummer did. Failing those two, it's time to burn the Republican Party down to the ground. Nominating two major cucks who nobody likes is the first step.

If they install Ryan as the nominee they will either lose in a "reverse-reagan" to clinton or a third-party "write-in" campaign by Trump/Sanders.

Ryan is being primaried by his former supporters in Wisconsin.The MSM is firmly in the globalist tank so you don't hear word one when this represents a major political backlash on the level of Cantor.http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/04/06/speaker-paul-ryans-primary-opponent-paul-nehlen-daily-ledger-interview/

#68See my previous comments on other posts about the validity of polls.

Why do people who don't like poll results always say this? Polls can be fickle but they often tell the truth. It's no secret that Trump has higher negative ratings than any candidate in recent memory. The question is, will it make a difference in the general election? Among Republicans I would say no. But among independent voters I would say yes.

Josh, if Cruz's surface objective (the Presidency) is his actual objective, he is doing it wrong. I suspect his actual objective is something else.

Paul was going for a moral delegate victory to influence the platform. It failed. Cruz is going for...what? The close consolation of losing a brokered convention? Beating Trump by delegates that don't reflect the popular votes and still relying on brokerage? Owing the GOPe for swing the preposterous NEVERTRUMP his way?

I don't think Cruz is that stupid. He might be that egotistical, but not that stupid. As his sexytime tattoo quintuplet bunnies indicate, he always has something on the side.

I simply don't know what he is playing for, but it sure as hell appears it isn't the Presidency.

And here's the other consideration, Cruz supporters are not behaving like their guy will be the nominee. Where would they find the voters? Cruz doesn't bring in new voters. The Cruzbots have been so snide to Trump supporters. They clearly don't want "those people" to vote for Cruz. We already know the evangelicals are not enough to elect anyone nationwide. This is not the way you run if you are serious. This is the way you run if you are a sacrifice candidate.

In 1980 Reagan had only 30% favorability ratings.I'm getting really tired of hearing this "favorability" straw-man.The numbers mean absolutely nothing until after the first head-to-head general debate, because until then the only thing independents and democrats see is the media saying the republican candidate vivisects women and children and nails black people to crosses for fun.

Michael O'Duibhir wrote:A true Catholic (not one of the Vatican II variety you are pointing to here) is a true nationalist to his bone marrow. That's part and parcel of being a TRUE Catholic. Do some research before you spout error.

Seriously, I'm not knocking Roman Catholics as errent. Compare them to the various Orthodox churches and you can see the internationalism involved.

When was the last time the Copts sent missionaries to Nigeria?

I'm only suggesting that their global bent is effecting Ryan's opinions on immigration as an example.

Let them bring it and let Trump go third party if it has to be that way. The GOP establishment will see just how irrelevant they are. I held my nose for Bob Dole, McCain, and Romney. Bush was a good governor here in Texas so I didn't buck them.

These are the same people who did what they could to block Reagan. These are the same bunch that called Trump supporters "drug addicts" and "alchoholics". They are every bit as vile as their Democrat counterparts. They are dead as a party after this election irregardless of who is elected president. There will be a third party in the future or the establishment will be thrown out. There isn't a bit of difference between them and the Democrat establishment. Let them rot.

Let them bring it and let Trump go third party if it has to be that way. The GOP establishment will see just how irrelevant they are. I held my nose for Bob Dole, McCain, and Romney. Bush was a good governor here in Texas so I didn't buck them.

These are the same people who did what they could to block Reagan. These are the same bunch that called Trump supporters "drug addicts" and "alchoholics". They are every bit as vile as their Democrat counterparts. They are dead as a party after this election irregardless of who is elected president. There will be a third party in the future or the establishment will be thrown out. There isn't a bit of difference between them and the Democrat establishment. Let them rot.

Reagan didn't have a 30% favorability rating. He was polling at 30% against Carter in January 1980, which is quite different. Reagan was likable. By May 1980 he was running equal with Carter. I don't expect Trump to be running even with Clinton a month from now. But I will agree the first head-to-head general debate can make a difference. How much remains to be seen.

@43 - A CBS exit poll yesterday showed that more than half of Wisconsin's GOP voters on Tuesday said they would be concerned or scared if Donald Trump were elected president. The poll found more than a third of Republican voters, 37 percent, said they would be scared and 18 percent said they would be concerned when asked how they would feel if Trump wins the White House. That might give one pause about Trump's chances in the general election.

Trump is the only candidate addressing any of the issues tearing this country apart. If he cannot win on the Republican ticket then it should give one pause about how much longer the United States can function in its current form.

>Seriously, I'm not knocking Roman Catholics as errent. Compare them to the various Orthodox churches and you can see the internationalism involved.

When was the last time the Copts sent missionaries to Nigeria?

That line makes no sense. Christianity was always, is always and shall always be an evangelical religion. I mean shit, Christ himself instructed the apostles to preach the gospel across the Roman Empire. Besides I bet you more Catholics will break for Trump than Cruz or Kaisch in the coming Primaries.

At this moment Soros, Black Lives Matter, and others are getting ready to riot all across the US next week. I think one of two things will happen. Either their numbers will be small and their gyrations will be insignificant or they will create a big firestorm and there will be push back.

I think Americans are starting to wake up that push back and playing the same games that the left does works. If things turn violent I think that will be the catalyst. I also think the majority of the left lack the spine for a real fight if push comes to shove.

There have been five Trump supporters who have inflicted violence on anti Trump supporters. In each case these were individuals acting on their own. By contrast the anti Trump on Trump supporter violence has been much more severe and they have been organized. The media, of course, has conscentrated only on the vocal Trumpsters. This perception will change. The truth will come out that the left is the violent unhinged group that needs to be watched. I honestly do not think a violent backlash will be that bad. Take World War One for instance. The use of poison gas stopped after both sides used it. Once the other side got a taste of it there was an unspoken truce that came from both sides and it was never used again. I think this same scenario will happen once the right becomes organized and violent. I think violence is on the horizon irregardless but treating fire with fire might be the only event that stops the violence. Otherwise it will get bloody. You cannot even talk about peace if the left sees gains from the violence they inflict. They intend to intimidate people away from Trump and voting.

AmStrat wrote:Can democrats sabotage new york? Wouldn't they be busy trying to get bernie or not-bernies their own delegates, regardless of how pointless it might be?

Yes and yes. They could, but:

1. It's a hard-fought race on the Democrat side too, and Sanders shows every sign of intending to go all the way;2. All their primaries are proportional, so they need every vote;3. And in a contest between a carpetbagger who lives there and a native son who left, they both have a claim to in-group preference.

Trump will win the GOP nomination. However, the prospects for the general election are not as good as you seem to think. I'm not making up numbers. His unfavorability among women alone is 68%! Turning that into a vote for Trump is going to be pretty tough. As it stands now Trump will need to win 70% of the white male vote to have a chance. I'm just trying to let you know the Trump fairy tale may not end as you want it to.

Also, the Gallup poll is one poll. Go to RealClearPolitics and see ALL the polls. They show Trump will win the GOP nomination easily. After that it's tough sledding.

@97 - I think they forgot to check the Weather Channel (or it was too busy with a climate alarm) to get the direction of the wind which is a good idea to know where to start the firestorm from.New meaning to "blowback".

They will probably be annoyed there is opposition and go home and burn their own neighborhoods.

Because, as I told dh last election, I've seen the polls in action for over 40 years now. The always over state the strength of the liberal candidates. Yeah, they were closer last time than they usually are, but Romney was a lousy candidate and a lot of R voters just stayed home. Given normal turnout, they would have been off as much as usual.

> It's no secret that Trump has higher negative ratings than any candidate in recent memory.

Hillary has higher negatives than Trump. But the polls don't tell you that, do they?

> Let them bring it and let Trump go third party if it has to be that way.

The only way Trump man manage a third party run now is if he's given the position by an established third party that has ballot access. It's too late otherwise.

>Seriously, I'm not knocking Roman Catholics as errent. Compare them to the various Orthodox churches and you can see the internationalism involved.

When was the last time the Copts sent missionaries to Nigeria?

That line makes no sense. Christianity was always, is always and shall always be an evangelical religion. I mean shit, Christ himself instructed the apostles to preach the gospel across the Roman Empire. Besides I bet you more Catholics will break for Trump than Cruz or Kaisch in the coming Primaries.

I don't deny The Great Commission. The Romans (mostly the Spanish and French) are the only ones who took it seriously. There are no Orthodox Coptic missionaries to Africa; their own continent.

The Pope calls Trump bad names about closing the border and you respond with "real Catholics are nationalist."

Even Ryan had said his position on immigration is formed by his Catholocism.

I'm only noting that it is because good Catholics are globalist in outlook; unlike Lutheranism.

Another ridiculous proposition. Ryan cannot be the nominee without winning at least 8 primaries or caucuses. Cruz has the delegate game tied up. If not Trump out right, Cruz has a shot on the second or third ballot. Cruz will not be denied the nomination due to his birth place. He is a natural born citizen, meaning he does not need to be naturalized. If Republican Trump haters wish to elect Hillary, its on them. It goes both ways for it seems the Cruz haters want Hillary to be President too. What a ridiculous situation. I prefer any Republican to win this year.

> Because, as I told dh last election, I've seen the polls in action for over 40 years now. The always over state the strength of the liberal candidates. Yeah, they were closer last time than they usually are, but Romney was a lousy candidate and a lot of R voters just stayed home. Given normal turnout, they would have been off as much as usual.

And you were wrong then you fool. Just like now.

There were no missing Romney votes. Obama performed exactly as the State-based polls said they would. The voter model was exactly consistent across all the major polling operations, and the whole 'unskewing' movement was shown to a mathematical retard fest.

The GOP has increased it's share of the white-vote year over year since 1984 or 1988 depending on how to measure it. This year will certainly show another increase.

The problem is eating more of a smaller pie is still less pie.

Romney got more "R" votes than any candidate in the history of the GOP.

In fact, more Democrats stayed home in 2012 than Republicans. Republican turn out in 2012 was up 985,177 voters. Democratic turn out was down 3,582,720 voters.

Just shut the fuck up about stuff you don't know what you are talking about. You are functionally idiotic. Romney failed for the same reason that McCain failed who failed for the same reason that who runs against Sec. Clinton will fail. There aren't enough white people relative to non-white people left to carry the GOP to victory.

This year was the last best hope, but unfortunately the GOP can't field a candidate who is both lucid and in control and also appropriately anti-immigration.

I'm not sure if the myth that R voters stayed home in 2012 is worse than the myth that R voters turning out would have given Romney a victory with him miraculously winning enough swing states to get 64 more electoral college votes.

>>Hillary has higher negatives than Trump<<Not true. They ARE high and, yes, polling does show us that. But not as high as Trump's. I'm not saying Trump cannot win. I'm saying it will be a challenge. That's all.

Polling has been pretty accurate since the 1990's. The key is not to read general election polling but state by state polling.

> Another ridiculous proposition. Ryan cannot be the nominee without winning at least 8 primaries or caucuses. Cruz has the delegate game tied up. If not Trump out right, Cruz has a shot on the second or third ballot. Cruz will not be denied the nomination due to his birth place. He is a natural born citizen, meaning he does not need to be naturalized. If Republican Trump haters wish to elect Hillary, its on them. It goes both ways for it seems the Cruz haters want Hillary to be President too. What a ridiculous situation. I prefer any Republican to win this year.

Rule 40 is suspended like this after the 1st ballot:Delegate: "Motion to char to suspend Rule 40".Chair: "Do I have a second?"Delegate 2: "Seconded"Chair: "Debate? None? I call the vote. All in favor of suspending Rule 40, say I"Delegates: "Aye"Chair: "The aye's carry it. On to new business."Delegate 3: "I motion that Paul Ryan be nominated for this ballot."Chair: "Seconded?"Delegate 4: "Seconded"Chair: "Debate? None? I call the vote. All in favor of nominating Paul Ryan for this ballot, say I"Delegates: "Aye"Chair: "The aye's have it. Paul Ryan is nominated for this ballot."

I swear to the stone that this place has declined. Nothing will stop the business whores who run the GOP from putting up a moderate candidate on the altar to be slaughtered by Team Clinton. Nothing. Not some stupid rule, not delegates, not history, not cries, not tears, no Trump, not anything.

and as far "New York values" I believe that NY values are out of step with the way the overall values of the country ought to be, NY values ought to conform and adapt to the ideas put forth in the constitution much better than they do

11B wrote:I suppose the advantage of having Ryan run for president, and lose, is that we can finally get him out of the House and out of the Speaker's seat.Apparently not. Remember he was running for VP in 2012. WI must have a law allowing a candidate to run for two offices at once.

I have not seen Cruz's mother's American birth certificate; nor, have I seen Putin's mother's American birth certificate. Putin is probably an American also. I think I'll vote for Putin, who I hear rewards loyalty.

and something I am thinking about is the idea of "nationalism in a heterogenous society- I think it is possible to have strong nationalism in a heterogenous society, not easy but it would be great if it could be attained

Ann Coulter actually dug through the state by state numbers and the white working class stayed home in the swing states and rust belt, killing Romney. He lost the white vote by ludicrous margins at that state, and justifiably so given he made his fortune destroying their jobs by the tens of thousands.

Some of the momentum toward Cruz is quite logical and not really nefarious.

People know that to win in November we will need a candidate who takes all this stuff kinda seriously. Cruz at least has that going for him. And Trump has pretty much turned into a complete clown show.

When you say that you're going to pay off a $20 trillion debt in just 8 years while cutting taxes, not touching entitlements, and increasing spending, and you're going to do it all simply by "making great deals", you're not a serious candidate.

When Trump says he's going to build a wall, view that statement in the same vein of him saying he's going to pay off the debt in 8 years. Is he for real?

From what I understand, Trump is doing great among non-Hispanic "ethnic" Catholics.

Remember: he got nearly 50% of the vote in Mass. And he'll win NY and Jersey thanks to blue collar Irish and Italian descended voters.

@103 SteveAlso, in Louisiana, the Protestant north went for Cruz, and the Catholic south went for Trump.

The Pope calls Trump bad names about closing the border and you respond with "real Catholics are nationalist."

@106 Rusty FifeThe so-called pope is an SJW entryist, not an actual Catholic. That's what happened with Vatican II: an SJW takeover.

Josh's invocation of "no true Scotsman" doesn't apply here.

The reason why more Catholics don't recognize that is because it's so hard to believe. Plus, 90% are completely apathetic anyway. To top it all off, over half now think "gay marriage" is wonderful, so they'd have no problem with an SJW-controlled Catholic Church in the first place.

" They ARE high and, yes, polling does show us that. But not as high as Trump's. I'm not saying Trump cannot win. I'm saying it will be a challenge. That's all."They said the same about Reagan. We all know how that turned out.

Trump and Cruz will have about 80% of the delegates. That means they write the rules. Rule 40b says that only candidates who have won the majority of delegates in at least 8 states can win. That means only Cruz and Trump can win. Why would Trump and Cruz change that rule? Just so they can be beaten by a hand picked party candidate after all their time, money and hard work?

Also, in Louisiana, the Protestant north went for Cruz, and the Catholic south went for Trump.

Because isolationist non-homogenizing American Catholics vote for Trump, Catholics are not Globalists.

Got it. I mean the notoriously clannish Irish only used Catholicism as a club to beat the English over the head with. French Canadian Catholics are so well integrated into Louisiana, other than their religion. I've got no snark for Italians. The Pollocks and Bohemians South of I-10 don't integrate very well either; hence Shiner.

What about the fact that Ryan has said his position on immigration is a direct result of his Catholicism?

You're mistaking GOP delegates for supporters of individual candidates. Most are there to get laid, get drunk, maybe try that gay fling they've been thinking about. If W and Romney and Rush ask them nicely, pander just a little and bring in Nick Searcy and Clint Eastwood, they'll do what they're asked.If not, they'll do what they're TOLD, dammit!

#124 aew51183 I'd be curious to read Coulter's assessment and numbers because it seems her data is outdated by two decades. The Rust Belt is made up of NY, PA, WV, OH, IN, MI, IL and WI. Of those NY, PA, IL, MI and WI have voted solidly Democratic since 1992. Then there is WV and IN which are solidly Republican [and were in 2012]. So that leaves OH which is always a swing state. But if Romney had won Ohio it would not have made a difference. Also Romney won 59% of the white male vote. That's huge. I don't think the Republican voters are there in the numbers she thinks they are. However, in sheer number of voters I will say the primary has had more GOP voters than Democratic ones. But primary turnout is not always indicative of a general.

People know that to win in November we will need a candidate who takes all this stuff kinda seriously. Cruz at least has that going for him. And Trump has pretty much turned into a complete clown show.

Karl Denninger has sketched out the numbers and says only Trump's plans pencil out. As an example, ending the medical monopolies (points 5 and 7 of Trump's health care plan) could reduce health care costs by 70-80% and save the federal budget $600-800 billion per year. Not to mention all the savings to private health care outlays. And that's just health care.

If Trump's unfavorables are so high, why are there so many women at his rallies? It's the usual "war against women" meme. And Hillary's unfavorables with women are at 58%. Why is it that you don't hear about that very often?

Look there is no secret cabal pulling strings to control all these puppets. whoever wins is going to be someone who is actually running for president. The rules are set by the delegates. The delegates are supporting candidates.

Therefore one of those candidates will win.

It will not be ryan or anyone else. It will either be Cruz or Trump or that idiot from Ohio.

Screw 'bama. let's get back on track.Josh : Hotty totty .Fuck Ole Piss.A more disgusting bunch of PC fags will you find no where in this state.They are worse than Vandy fags, and that is the bottom of the barrel.

Trump or Cruz needs 63% of the white vote at 2012 turnout levels to win, assuming blacks turn out at less than Obama-levels (64% in 2008 and 66% in 2012) and either gets above 7% of them. Trump I think can do this, Cruz I think gets Romney's ~60% tops, and probably more like 58%.

I look at how terribly Hillary is doing against her party's token opposition and I have a hard time seeing blacks rush to turn out for her at Obama-levels. Vote for her, sure, but I don't see where they're going to be doing the historically-high turnout again when they usually give the whitey 58-60% turnout. And if they aren't giving her near-record turnout, it's hard to see how she gets to 40% of whites except against Cruz by using the theocrat angle.

Sure Cruz may be a slimeball who is bought off, but the hookers in Peoria are starving! Think of the starving hookers!Cruz is poetic justice. A whore who pays for whores. Its like a sick cycle of whoring that goes round and round.Trump could never whore like that. Who needs freedom when you can have a parliament of whores? It almost sounds classy when you put it that way.I really don't want historians to wonder how the Second Civil War started. A Whoring whore who whores a lot, will be the perfect way to start the last chapter of democracy on Earth.

I want Trump to get the nom, but if its gonna be Cruz I hope the GOP is serious with him and he is there to win, ... I like the thing that Trump said about the 2012 election, something to the effect of Romney was not in it to win it. Trump is in to win it, if Cruz is gonna take the repub nomination from Trump then I believe he OWES it to GOP Trump supporters to be in it to win it

Rusty, what I'm saying is that what today passes for the Catholic Church is no such thing. The Vatican, and, by extension, its various dioceses around the world, was gradually infested with liberals beginning a couple of hundred years ago (some would say earlier, some later). By 1958, the year that Pope Pius XII died, the whole thing was a powder keg waiting to blow. It did blow via the Second Vatican Council which convened in 1962 and ended in 1965. From that point on the downward spiral proceeded apace to the point that what the world recognizes as the "Catholic Church" is actually an anti-Catholic counter-church. Anyone who researches the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church with the teachings of the usurper church cannot fail to see what I'm saying here. That's all I was saying. No hard feelings.Cheers

Trump should massacre Cruz in the next 5-6 primaries in the NE. This still puts him on path to be 100+ delegates short, esp if you don't count on PA's unbound delegates. Still, the lead over Cruz should be widened enough to make Cruz look like a Super Kasich rather than a close second, which is necessary if Trump is to have any shot of getting from ~1100 delegates to the nomination.

It's all relative. I'd greatly prefer Trump but Cruz is better than the next guy.

This isn't a game where we can just take our marbles and go home. Someone's going to be President. Second best is better than third best. Worse is better than the very worst.

This stuff matters a lot. As bad as I thought Obama would be, I initially thought he wouldn't be as bad as he could be. After all, McCain had a lot of bad positions. I was wrong. Obama was worse than I could imagine.

Hillary will be worse than you think. Even Jeb! would be better.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

Watch who you're calling a Senior Citizen, Sonny! I prefer the term "geezer". If you want to sort out how Romney did, the data's easy to come by. Just slap it in a spreadsheet. I've been informally looking at some of the states and it's amazing how badly McCain did. I have not been looking for the missing white folks but it wouldn't surprise me if they sat it out. I'm sorry that I voted for him.

but ya know a wise man advised to just stay away from politics, and he's right, its not worth getting emotionally involved, they are just paying with me anyway, and I saw Cruz and his family and I felt bad for calling him names, it brings out the worst in me, so Im gonna stay away from it, it was good to meetup with everyone again here, but the whole thing suddenly seems like a WWF event to me and I just am not into it anymore, peace!

My head is spinning from the overload. I'm just going to trust the process. If it's Trump, so be it. If it's Cruz, so be it. If it's Bozo the World's Most Famous Clown, so be it. They're all better than the Crook™ or the Kook™. But if, and the end of the day, we're collectively too stupid to live...well, whaddya do?

Craig you mentioned earlier that you think a multi ethnic nation could work. Those places tend to be empires in reality and they tend to break apart like austria-hungary, Yugoslavia and the USSR. The US has not even invested any effort for the last 40 years to craft a unifying theme that could begin to hold us together if the economy went belly up.

"revolt and stand behind me, and I will do everything in my power to get Cruz in Scalia's slot."

What a great idea! A banker/globalist slut sitting in SCOTUS.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

How much freedom do you have to lose, before you lose freedom? Face it. If you gave Trump-Cruz-Clinton-Bernie supporters a golden platter heaped with liberty, they'd recoil in horror, and you would hear millions of toilets being flushed.

That American experiment is over. Kaput. It will never regain the liberties of 50, 75, 100, 150, 200 years ago. Ever.

Get used to it. There is the moneyed class, the serf class, and the enforcer class. Republic! Republic! Republic!

"This isn't a game where we can just take our marbles and go home. Someone's going to be President. Second best is better than third best. Worse is better than the very worst."

You don't seem to get it.

When second best is clustered at the bottom with "worst", we most certainly can "take our marbles and go home".Heck, it's better off to shove the stick forward as far as it will go and ogger this plane into the deck. At least then the next passengers will board a shiny new plane.

multi ethnic nation could work. well there are successful Americans living successful lives and they have multi ethnic friends so it working for them.... and as far as the libertarian option, 10 years ago I didn't like that but today I can totally see why someone would become a liberatarian, bc the republicans just aren't serious why would I get emotiaonally invested when I know that they aren't serious, I would be a fool to do that and wasting my time and energy

> I'm just trying to let you know the Trump fairy tale may not end as you want it to.

You really don't understand how this works, do you? If Hillary wins it's merely more of the same, and a sped up collapse of the system. We win either way.

> There were no missing Romney votes. Obama performed exactly as the State-based polls said they would.

As we discussed at the time, dh, the state and the national polls didn't agree, and the state polls were what showed that Romney had a slim chance of winning. He performed in line with the national polls, not the state polls. You agreed that the two were not in sync, but did not have an explanation as to why. If you do now, I'll listen.

> Ann Coulter actually dug through the state by state numbers and the white working class stayed home in the swing states and rust belt, killing Romney. He lost the white vote by ludicrous margins at that state...

Do you have a link for that? I'd like to read it.

> God rest Merle Haggard's dear soul.

Agreed. That entire generation of musicians is almost gone. Cash, Jennings, and now Haggard. Nelson is about the only one left.

> and as far as Cruz, who know I might probably support him if he wins the nomination..

If the R nominee is Trump I'll vote for him. If it's Cruz, I'll vote for him. If it's anyone else, I'll be voting third party. If Hillary wins over Trump, it'll probably be the last time I bother voting.

> And you were wrong then you fool. Just like now. ... There were no missing Romney votes ... 2012: Romney - 60,933,500 ... 2004: Bush - 60,040,710

Wikepedia says Bush got 62,040,610 votes in 2004, dh. Are you saying they're wrong? That's the kind of factual information I'd expect them to be right about. CNN largely agrees, saying 62,040,606. Both agree that's more than either McCain or Romney got.

While Trump was playing "you're fired," Cruz was standing up to the establishment and had the balls to tell the world from the Senate floor that the Senate Leader lied to him. Trump is a fraud and a phony. He's a New Yawk Liberal selling snake oil to the hicks in flyover land, telling them he is conservative. Now all the hicks are too proud to admit that they've been had. So naturally they double down.

> Wikepedia says Bush got 62,040,610 votes in 2004, dh. Are you saying they're wrong? That's the kind of factual information I'd expect them to be right about. CNN largely agrees, saying 62,040,606. Both agree that's more than either McCain or Romney got.

The high-water mark seems to be Bush's re-election against a famously weak candidate in the middle of a war. I will look for my original source. The difference may be that I am trying to capture the number of Republican votes, and Pres Bush re-election came with a record number of non-Republicans voting for his re-election.

I do think the point is still correct, that Romney did not underperform. The statement is as true with "he received the 2nd greatest amount of Republican votes ever".

The Democratic turnout lost over over 3 million votes between 2008 and 2012, while the Republican turnout increased slightly. One person underperformed, and it was Pres. Obama, not Gov. Romney.

The problem is that Republicans are taking too small a slice of an increasing pie.

> While Trump was playing "you're fired," Cruz was standing up to the establishment and had the balls to tell the world from the Senate floor that the Senate Leader lied to him. Trump is a fraud and a phony. He's a New Yawk Liberal selling snake oil to the hicks in flyover land, telling them he is conservative. Now all the hicks are too proud to admit that they've been had. So naturally they double down.

Trump hasn't come out as sometime of ur-Conservative. Most Republicans aren't conservative that's the rub you idiot.

The Republicans are four groups:

1. Big business, who only care about breaking the economy for their benefit. Mostly in-charge.2. Neoconservatives, who are intent to remake the middle east into a client state of the US. Mostly idiots.3. Serious Christians, who are constantly being screwed over and are treated with disdain by the party.4. Nationalists, who are constantly being marginalized by the party.

> The difference may be that I am trying to capture the number of Republican votes, and Pres Bush re-election came with a record number of non-Republicans voting for his re-election. ... I do think the point is still correct, that Romney did not underperform.

If your analysis is correct, Romney was a notoriously liberal republican candidate and yet he got fewer non-republican votes than Bush did, so we'll simply have to disagree about what constitutes underpeforming.

> The problem is that Republicans are taking too small a slice of an increasing pie.

I'll grant that you're entirely correct on that point. Of course, that's why Trump is being as successful as he is.

That's the second time you've use dthat line on this thread, dh. I let it slide for me, as I have been known to be an idiot on occasion. No one is attacking you, so this isn't like you. I can understand having a bad day, but...

This whole thread is just conspiracy theory bullshit. By definition, a conspiracy is a secret plan. Those who want to defeat Trump are not being secretive about it. They are stating it openly, and telling everyone exactly how they intend to defeat him.

Moreover, the plan they have is according to the nomination rules of the party. When ALL candidates have a minority of delegates, then after the first ballot, negotiations between different factions will continue until one coalition of delegates gets a majority of votes.

There is simply nothing illegal, immoral, or underhanded about any of that. It is simply old-fashioned parliamentary procedure that had been going on in England and the Anglosphere for 800 years. If you are unfamiliar with that, it is your fault, not your opponents.

Trump can win with either a majority by himself, or a majority coalition with others at the Convention. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.

If you think it is strange or un-American, that just displays you ignorance about both history and politics. Sheesh!

Get over yourselves. If you lose, it will be in a fair fight. Ryan has already disavowed seeking the nomination, and Reince Preibus had already said it will be one of the three guys still in the campaign.

> If your analysis is correct, Romney was a notoriously liberal republican candidate and yet he got fewer non-republican votes than Bush did, so we'll simply have to disagree about what constitutes underpeforming.

The worst case scenario is that Romney underperformed Bushes second term, but out performed his first term. Considering the drop off that his opponent faced (over 3 million votes) gaining votes from the last election is very positive, in fact, over performing. Based on McCain's performance, he overperformed.

I thought I was making it clear it goes both ways. So instead of whining about Cruz actually, you know, trying to win. Just win it yourself, Mr. Trump.

The fevered pits of imagination that make Cruz out to be some demonic manifestation because he simply is still trying to win the race astound me. There is no conspiracy. Trump's opponents are trying to beat him. Nothing wrong with that. It's called politics. So, if you want to win, then go win. Otherwise, don't.

Conspiracy theories are the redoubts of those who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures. Other people acting in their own perceived interest may harm you, but it was never really about you. They were just acting in their own interest. No conspiracy needed.

NEWSFLASH: The world is not fair. I taught that to my son when he was in junior high. So, go win anyway. It's on you. People don't actually care enough about you to conspire against you at the level some of you think they do. It's supreme arrogance to think they waste precious time even thinking about what you want. So, YOU must do it for yourself. And if you get into a competitive situation and lose, then guess what? You simply got beat. It doesn't automatically mean the other guy cheated.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.